Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 19 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 21 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


October 20

[edit]

Request on 07:19:52, 20 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mahi Ashraf

[edit]



Mahi Ashraf (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? "Mahi is a good boy" is to be an article? Fiddle Faddle 08:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:12, 20 October 2015 review of submission by Lambao.truong

[edit]

Hi, I'd like to know which sources on my Draft:Spireon page are not reliable/notable?

1) "Notice of Exempt Offering of Securities: Spireon". U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Retrieved 20 October 2015.

2) "Company Overview of Spireon, Inc.". Bloomberg Business. Retrieved 20 October 2015.

3) "Company Data: Spireon". U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Retrieved 20 October 2015.

4) "Bertram Capital Portfolio Company, ProconGPS, Inc. Announces Name Change to Spireon, Inc.". Bertram Capital. Retrieved 20 October 2015.

--Lambao.truong (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Lambao.truong (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambao.truong: Hi, I was the reviewer on Draft:Spireon. I'll flesh out some of my reasoning here:
  1. The SEC article does not offer substantive content about the company other than filing and securities minutiae.
  2. The Bloomberg Business overview has no substantive content that shows notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. It summarizes that the company exists but does not explain why they are notable. Many, many companies have Bloomberg profiles and SEC filings, but this does not make them notable.
  3. This SEC document falls prey to the same problems as the first SEC reference.
  4. This article is a PR/primary source that is not suitable for demonstrating notability.
Let me know if you have further questions about these sources. Thanks,/wia /tlk /cntrb 16:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:05:10, 20 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Hurryupsisprod

[edit]


I am requesting assistance about my page on the documentary film "No Job For a Woman": The Women Who Fought to Report WWII. I used the Wikipedia page on "The Hunting Ground" a documentary by Kirby Dick as a template for my page. I hewed fairly closely to what they did and am wondering how I can edit the "No Job For a Woman" page to meet the standards you are looking for> Should I delete the Home Media section? Should I rewrite the Content section to make it shorter? Please let me know what else I can do to fix the page. Many thanks.

Hurryupsisprod (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When using an existing article as a comparison or an example to work from, it would be better to use a recognised Wikipedia Good Article. You could look at some of the non-fiction items in Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama#2010s films. A Draft need not be quite so comprehensive or comprehensively referenced as these to be accepted, but they can help to give an idea of the sort of sources, sourcing, and tone that is required.
Among specific problems that your Draft has at the moment is that the "Special Screenings" section should be removed entirely except for any that have been reported on by independent reliable sources, likewise "Awards, Honors and Funding" needs some but perhaps not quite as much trimming, and external links (for example to the Women Make Movies website) should not be in the body of the Draft. You also don't seem to have any coverage of critical reception of the film, which as you will see from the Good Articles linked above, is normally a key component.
Many reviewers are more positive about Drafts that use inline citations for referencing sources. This is because it makes it possible to see which information came from which source. You can find more about how to add inline citations at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:27, 20 October 2015 review of submission by DmitryPopovRU

[edit]


Hello Wikipedia Editors,

Regarding the following page Draft:Alex Gilbert So this page was deleted and was not told to come back on Wikipedia again. Though new reliable sources for this article have appeared online. How can I resubmit this?

Here are all the sources along with new ones.

DmitryPopovRU (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provided your new draft is substantially different from any prior draft or article you may start to create it, may work on it and may submit it for review. You need to judge whether the gentleman passes WP:BIO and whether your references meet our needs. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
I am not commenting upon your list of references. Please compare them with our requirements before deciding whether to move forward or not.
Be aware that notability is not negotiable. You must assert it, and verify it with references. Because the article has been deleted in the past you must do an even more thorough job with referencing than any prior attempt.
You should engage the admin who deleted the prior article(s) in a conversation before proceeding. While not mandatory it is highly advisable. Fiddle Faddle 21:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, the gentleman appears to be subject to WP:BLP1E. In general it is very unlikely that he will make the grade. Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fiddle. He actually covers other topics not directly linking to just his adoption. I am trying to restore the source so I can work on it.

Thanks- Dmitry --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DmitryPopovRU: What he covers is not really relevant. What is relevant is what others over about him. Fiddle Faddle 13:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:37:50, 20 October 2015 review of submission by 74.101.203.117

[edit]
Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. Do you have a specific question about the draft article? /wia /tlk /cntrb 12:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2015_October_20&oldid=687502239"